This year may see the extinction of a word, like the last elephant in the Knysna forests of South Africa. The word is might. ‘If they had been wearing lifejackets,’ the radio reporter says, ‘their lives may have been saved.’ But they weren’t and they weren’t, so in our book it should have been: ‘Their lives might have been saved.’
In trying to explain the reason why, people often get into an awful tangle with ‘succession of tenses’. That is not the only problem, as may be seen in glorious detail from the article on the word may in the Oxford English Dictionary, which has just this month been revised. It now runs to 17,500 words.
Objection to the misuse of might and may is not new. The OED gives an amusing example from 1788 by Charles Coote. He was a lawyer turned grammarian ‘of a retired disposition, with much of that eccentricity and indolence which often accompany literary merit’. In his Elements of the Grammar of the English Language, he criticises the grammar, if not of our Saviour, at least of the translators of St John’s Gospel: ‘“I am come, that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” Here may would be more proper than might, as it is more correspondent with the tense of I am come.’
Among usages that the OED now calls rare is might with the passive infinitive. I am sad about this, for it can be a pleasing construction, as William Trevor shows: ‘An out-of-the way Odeon to which entrance might be made through a broken window of the Ladies.’
The dictionary singles out two usages as ‘frequently criticised by prescriptive grammatical commentators during the 20th century’ (you and me).
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in